Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12519624›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Interventions aimed at improving immunization rates.

P Szilagyi, J Vann, C Bordley, A Chelminski, R Kraus, P Margolis, L Rodewald

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. [Digital vaccination management systems may improve immunization rates in primary healthcare].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

P SzilagyiCentre for Public Health Practice, University of North Carolina, School of Public Health, CB# 7400, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. jvann@sph.unc.edu
J Vann
C Bordley
A Chelminski
R Kraus
P Margolis
L Rodewald
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USHyattsville Community Development Corporation · USNorth Carolina Division of Public Health · USUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached national goals. As a result of low immunization rates, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care physicians, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. A common theme across immunization programs in all nations involves the challenge of determining the denominator of eligible recipients (e.g., all children who should receive the measles vaccine), and identifying the best strategy to ensure high vaccination rates. Strategies have focused on patient-oriented interventions (e.g., patient reminders), provider interventions, and system interventions. One intervention strategy involves patient reminder/recall systems.

objectivesAssess the effectiveness of patient reminder/recall systems in improving immunization rates, and compare the effects of various types of reminders in different settings or patient populations. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE (1966-1998) and 4 other bibliographic databases: EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and CAB Abstracts. Authors also performed a search of EPOC in April 2001 to update the review. Two authors reviewed the lists of titles and abstracts, and used the inclusion criteria to mark potentially relevant articles for full review. The reference lists of all relevant articles and reviews were back searched for additional studies. Publications of abstracts, proceedings from scientific meetings, and files of study collaborators were also searched for references. SELECTION CRITERIA: STUDY

designRandomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled before and after studies (CBA), and interrupted time series (ITS) studies written in English. TYPES OF

participantsHealth care personnel who deliver immunizations and children (birth to 18 years) or adults (18 years and up) who receive immunizations in any setting. Types of interventions: Any intervention that falls within the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) scope and that includes patient reminder and/or recall in at least one arm of the study. Types of outcome measures: Immunization rates, or the proportion of the target population up-to-date on recommended immunizations. Outcomes were acceptable for either individual vaccinations (e.g., influenza vaccination) or standard combinations of recommended vaccinations (e.g., all recommended vaccinations by a specific date or age). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: DATA COLLECTION: Each study was read independently by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by a formal reconciliation process to achieve consensus. ANALYSIS: Results are presented for individual studies as relative rates for randomized controlled trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before and after studies. Pooled results were presented using the random effects model. MAIN

resultsPatient reminder/recall systems were effective in improving immunization rates in 33 of 41 included studies, irrespective of baseline immunization rates, patient ages, type of setting, or type of vaccination. Increases in immunization rates due to reminders were in the range of 5 to 20 percentage points. Reminders were effective for childhood vaccinations (OR=2.02, 95% CI =1.49,2.72), childhood influenza vaccinations (OR=4.19, 95% CI =2.07,8.49), adult pneumococcus or tetanus (OR=5.14, 95%CI = 1.21, 21.8), and adult influenza vaccinations (OR=2.29, 95%CI = 1.69, 3.10). While reminders were most effective in academic settings (OR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.98, 5.58), they were also highly effective in private practice settings (OR=1.79, 95% CI = 1.45, 2.22) and public health clinics (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.42, 3.07). All types of reminders were effective (postcards, letters, telephone or autodialer calls), with telephone being the most effective but most costly. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsPatient reminder/recall systems in primary care settings are effective in improving immunization rates.

Indexed as

Reminder SystemsHumansImmunizationImmunization Programs

Identifiers

PMID12519624
OpenAlexW1538738752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.